Big Dead Place :: Letters

That was an excellent interview with Jon Johanson! Thanks for publishing it— I haven't seen the whole story written out before and there is definitely a lot of misinformation out there!

But reading the rest of your site I'm getting more and more discouraged about living at the South Pole for a year. I may be coming down there this coming summer and staying through next winter to operate one of the experiments. I know that the climate is harsh, that there's somewhat limited contact with the outside world and that people get weird after living for 6 months without light. But what sounds most discouraging is that the facilities are run like a Dilbert cartoon strip.

Do you have any words of encouragement, or have I pretty much hit the nail on the head?

Thanks,
[R]

Have you noticed in offices how Dilbert cartoons are stuck to almost every cubicle wall, and no boss in any office is concerned about that in the least? In Dilbert cartoons the office turmoil satirized usually limits itself to the characters' fear of the immediate boss and their role as victims of the hierarchy. Dilbert is less a cutting satire of corporate culture than a salve for the office grunt's frustration as a "victim" in that culture, though it's kind of funny, and besides, how much can one expect from a three-panel cartoon strip? Nevertheless, if I were to reference fiction in describing American Antarctica, I would rather point to Joseph Heller's Catch 22, Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, or Francis Ford Coppolla's Apocalypse Now as deft descriptions of parallel absurdity.

This place has the most insane bureaucracy I have ever seen. Living in McMurdo is like living a real-world Catch 22 (in the sense of bureaucracy, not of the war scenario), and though South Pole is sane in comparison, it's rapidly moving in that direction, hastened to a bureaucratic future by Pole's fashionable dictator, who might be called tough, but who might also be called a tough lapdog of NSF, building from their blueprint a shinier Pole with safety glasses on every wall and a new rule for every situation. Yes sir, old-timers say that classic Pole has fallen, and though the new era may promise the comfort of a new station and upgraded facilities, it also promises to bring a new wave of paperpushers, policy-driven onlookers, and Dilbert cartoon strips hung in cubicles that overlook the geographic south pole. South Pole may be the "last frontier", as it says on the souvenir t-shirts in the store, but it may also be the "last suburb."

You asked for words of encouragement, though. I have plenty:

1. It sounds like you are either a grantee or a lab tech. That alone alleviates 80% of your responsibility to sub-contractor management, though you'll still have some NSF hoops to jump through.

2. Though it is nearly impossible to exaggerate the absurdity that fluorishes here, that is not the whole story. Like any other media project, Big Dead Place has an angle, an inevitable bias. That bias would be different were I female, Russian, or in the upper levels of management rather than a lowly grunt. What is unique about Big Dead Place is that it fills a gap in Antarctic literature that for decades has been passed over in the rush by writers to document harsh weather, natural beauty, and remote deprivation. It is other writers' phenomenally unanimous conformity to the classic Antarctic image that gives Big Dead Place the appeal of novel dissidence when, actually, these stories have been around since the beginning, but only in the oral history of those workers engaged in the Antarctic Program, whom professional journalists from the papers talk with for about five minutes before writing about blizzards and penguins and making do with instant coffee.

My point is this: Big Dead Place does not generally focus on natural beauty, rugged conditions, science, comaraderie in remote isolation, or any heroism that may be involved in the Antarctic lifestyle, because those topics have been steadily beaten like a dead pony for the past hundred years. Nonetheless, those stories are not necessarily false ones, and anyone really curious about Antarctic culture would best serve themselves by reading a wide variety of Antarctic literature, including the penguin and iceberg stuff, which omits the true stories I record as surely as I omit the true stories of penguins and icebergs. (For these omissions, Big Dead Place has received the criticism of being biased. Well, no shit. What these critics are really saying is: "Big Dead Place has a different bias than other Antarctic literature, which largely shares the same bias." Just because a thousand people share the same bias does not mean their bias defines neutrality, any more than a thousand churches prove the existence of god.) A worker writing about some of the better activities here might result in NSF attempting to put a stop to them, so though Big Dead Place strives to record something of the overlooked truth about this place, I have also kept plenty of polar pleasures purposefully partitioned from the prying eyes of the public. This influence tints the site with an air of the Negative Nellie, which is a distortion, and which tells little of the curiosity and enthusiasm that drives this site. In short, it's really beautiful here, there's some good people, and the work can be interesting, so come on down.

3. Anyway, what's so great about where you are now?

F. Scott Robert

P.S. I recognize that recent content has veered toward meta-journalism and away from fascinating Antarctic shenanigans, so here's some pictures of an Aussie Hagglund that recently fell through the ice:

~~~

14 May 04

Hello fellow pasty-white bastards,

Being a Navy guy, I can appreciate the long hours of work juxtaposed with even longer hours of boredom trapped in the work setting. I can further relate to knowingly volunteering to work in the very place where one feels like a trapped rat with nowhere to go. In that regard, being at sea is similar to being at McMurdo. I therefore offer up this link, sent not in jest, but sent in the spirit of a geek that enjoys mindless escapism. Let the helo take you away. You may find it ironic that a helicopter is flying in a cave, trying to avoid walls. As a former Naval Aviator with a bit of flight time, I can say that I’ve never flown in a cave. It doesn’t sound like fun. However, this little game is a lot of fun. I hope you enjoy it:

Helicopter Game

Yours in mindless escapism,

Helo Bubba

Lotsa p.s. b.s.: try to beat 1476 feet…and your site is an outstanding tribute to intellect in isolation. I hope you win the tax war!

~~~

12 May 04

To: DEN-ALL
Subject: Office Attire from Human Resources

The weather is getting warm and the flowers are blooming so it is time to remind everyone about appropriate office attire for the summer season. While we do not have a formal dress code policy, we certainly expect our employees to dress for work and not the beach. Please be mindful that shorts and revealing clothes are not considered appropriate business attire. Just take a moment to look in the mirror before leaving for the office to insure that what you are wearing is appropriate for an office environment.

Thanks and have a great summer season!

Sr. Manager, Human Resources
Raytheon Polar Services

~~~

12 May 04

Hi...I wintered at South Pole in 1977 as facilities engineer...what a trip that was...and I was construction superintendent for Siple Station in 1978-9...I enjoy reading the site...I found it funny the name you picked...one time when I was trying to describe Antarctica to a friend a long time ago, I recall stating that 'it's this big dead place'...hmmm, must be true if two of us think so! Anyway, continue to have fun along your journey.

Bill Koleto, OAE

~~~

9 May 04

...Everything is going along just fine here. I have one tenant I am trying to evict. He is a nut case and is getting worse by the day. He is verbally abusive to other tenants and to me and his apartment is totally trashed. Karen, the owner, is handling the eviction cause she doesn't want me in harms way. If he comes after me I will call the police and they will come get him. They know all about him. He is manic depressive and does not take his meds. He builds things in his apartment and then takes them apart and throws everything in the dumpster. I planted lots of flowers around and he goes and pulls them up and puts them in his apartment....

[F. Scott Robert's Mom, who manages a suburban apartment complex]

~~~

21 April 04

In regards to your 03 April entry, I find myself falling in agreement with your stance and explanation of such. It is this sort of perspective that has enriched and sustained me thus far during my time in McMurdo. To recognize and find amusement in the contradictions of human nature; as noted, without this ability surely things would turn rather nasty in such a contained environment. Although, I am hesitant in relation to your relatively broad acceptance of weakness. I would like to think that more individuals would possess more strength; that they would play out the emotions of their esteems based on some sort of humanitarian ethics rather than simply bend over for a hierarchical structure. I would like to think that I find myself in the company of some "critical thinkers" who find more fun and creative ways to indulge in their inevitably selfish tendencies, rather than to just be systematic suckers. Would it hurt to raise the bar a little?

And while I'd rather not be dubbed as a PC nazi, I could not help but notice your gender exclusive use of pronouns. Forgive me, as I have been trained.

[L]

And where should the bar be held? Should we start by focusing on someone's gender exclusive use of pronouns? Racial epithets? Inappropriate comments of any kind? Obviously the first thing we need to do then is come up with some sort of policy about what kinds of language are over the bar and what kinds are under the bar. While we're making language tidy, let's call the bar "humanitarian ethics" so that anyone who argues with our policies can be written off as "unethical" or "anti-humanitarian", then we can lynch them in the square to an easy applause (if you're not clapping, you might want to start soon). Well, that was easy...calibrate a few political maneuvers as the definitions of moral virtue and soon even our opponents are careful to use our vocabulary in public. Now we've almost got them beat! This is where our friends with the swords will come in. We may not think we have friends with swords, but once we have implemented our humanitarian policies they will appear, and they will share our desire to hold up the bar for humanity (which we care so deeply about), and they will be able to approach humanity in ways that we had not thought of. Don't worry though, our friends with the swords will deal only with those unethical and anti-humanitarian types that are mucking around under the bar. Ethical and humanitarian "critical thinkers" will still be allowed to speak or write, as long as they make sure that each pronoun pays proper tribute to each gender, keeping everything Even-Steven and Even-Stephanie.

Raising the bar for anyone but yourself is an attack on others. The attack in itself is understandable, but inevitably this is the kind of attack that is smothered in stinking moral rationalizations that give the attacker a glaze-eyed purpose indiscernible from that of a fanged lizard smug in its camouflage. To attack and defend is part of the game we've signed on for merely by being born, but to reshape the outcome so that we are always on the grander side of morality requires some fancy hopscotching in the streets of denial.

My broad acceptance of weakness? I accept everything. Others are as they are. Institutions do what they do. I'll attack or defend as suits me, but I won't deny their qualities merely to build a thought-proof staging area for some moral crusade against the Other. Some people want to bend over for a hierarchical structure. Why shouldn't they? It works for them; they'll be rewarded. What are you offering but a different scheme of incentives?

Forgiveness is irrelevant. You're an HR nazi. Get a job as a publicist for NSF and keep your little bar the fuck off me.

F. Scott Robert

[L. responds (3 June 04):]

I’m not wearing camouflage. Carhartts rather. And I have my fangs filed down on a regular basis. I never meant to suggest that I was trying to impose my "little bar" on you, or anyone else for that matter. Nor was my intent to fantasize about censoring the nature and actions of others. I think I am agreeing with you when I say that using morals as a form of control is contrived and does not result in any sort of change beyond that which is superficial.

But I do have my opinions, which as anyone's, are based on morals and judgment. So I was not attempting to start a "crusade" but rather I was hoping to get a little more insight through a better understanding of your opinion.

I guess I was expressing a shred of my own idealism when I questioned to what degree people must be “strong” to not “transform into human cogs, robotic drones who exist only in a world of reaction, desensitized to anything but reward and punishment, and are thus easily manipulated by anyone with more power than they, and therefore should not be trusted.” This was the “acceptance of weakness” I was questioning. To suggest that I desire the installment of some sort of grand socio-political scheme would counteract my very hope that people are more inclined to think for themselves.

(Your point that you “accept everything” is well taken. I see now that acceptance itself does not necessarily imply judgment or resignation, but rather acknowledgment.)

And while I claim that personal idealism so expressed, I simultaneously (and realistically) acknowledge the “cross-over attributes” of others and myself, not only in relation to the hierarchical institution to which we hold membership cards, but also in the inherent characteristics of human nature itself.

So, I should have been more specific when I inquired about “raising the bar.”

I also should have been more specific when broaching the topic of gendered language. You’re right: “Forgiveness is irrelevant.” I wasn’t really asking for you to pardon me. That, and the reference to being a “PC nazi,” was an unfortunate attempt at dry humor misconstrued. And while I see my own uses (for my own personal agenda) for writing in gender inclusive tones, as stated above, I know better than to try and force such things upon others. As you have so eloquently demonstrated, such imposition inevitably results in backlash.

Again, my questioning of your writing (whether it be about conceptual content or pronoun usage) is not about crusading. Merely, it is an attempt at widening my perspective.

[L]

~~~

27 March 04

fuck, I'm drunk, McMurdo Winter. Alcohol. Drunk.

bye

[J]

~~~

23 March 04

As someone with a unique point of view on [the Safety Representative] at South Pole, I feel a need to share. First off, I was one of the 2002-2003 winterovers and met this woman when she arrived on first flight. I've done the safety gig before in the real world and have some experience with the "rules are written in stone and must be obeyed" mindset some people in the field get. I figured she'd either learn to accomodate or she'd become 2003-2004's Most Hated Polee.

When she told me that she intended to hang out in the bar to monitor everyone's drinking, I figured it would be the latter.

A few of us departing winterovers hiding in the bar made a bet about whether she'd relax or she'd suffer a complete personality meltdown this winter. Thanks for the update, someone now owes me a drink should I return to Antarctica again.

[P]

3 April 04

There's been some talk about this letter, and I feel a response is in order.

It's natural that in the course of free speech, where opinions are publicly expressed, and minute angles of our cultural foibles are scrutinized and offered up for debate, that someone somewhere will not appreciate being included in the discussion. I understand. When I discover that someone has been speaking of me in an unflattering light, my kneejerk response is a rainbow array of emotions: those people are "mean", they don't "understand", it's none of their "business", they've "hurt my feelings". But my delayed response is this: people talk about work, the weather, their broken garage door, and other minor influences in their lives, so why shouldn't they talk about me if I exist in their world? People have been talking about people since tongues were invented, and this is unlikely to end anytime soon. There are essentially two options for dealing with our role as objects in others' lives: get them to stop talking about us, or grow some skin. The first option springs from the realm of control, where the hurt feelings and wounded ego seek security in victimhood, simmering in righteousness before boiling over as a conviction to eliminate the source of the ego's pain, to erase it from the surrounding world. The second option springs from the realm of self-control, putting the matter in your own hands, thereby reducing the influence of the surrounding world in determining your identity.

The letter above was written by a winterover relating an opinion on a direct experience. He remains unnamed. The object of the opinion also remains unnamed. The document's relevance to this website does not depend on the identities of the people involved. Why? Because this website is about our culture. The players themselves are largely irrelevant to the stories. But what is important are the players' roles. In our hierarchy, the station manager plays a different role than the dishboy. But though these roles entail different responsibilities, the first defense from the average player if he feels the need to defend his actions is this: I was just doing my job. True enough. We're trained, paid, and conditioned to play roles (or "do our jobs"), and in most cases this is a successful defense of one's character, because we all know the pressures big and small that keep us mutually hogtied, and we therefore empathize with the argument. Even the doomed recognize the responsibilities of the executioner.

The frustrations arising from living in a society of submerged humanity makes some people angry. It used to make me angry, where I'd bristle with loud statements about "good nazis" and such, until I built myself a new model: one in which the person and the role are unique beings with crossover attributes. A concrete example of what that means to me is that I actually like some of the very people whose roles I attack in the pages herein. I maintain confidences with NSF Representatives, though I find the organization they represent to be a bloated cow long overgrazed on public funds. I'm friends with full-timers and managers in Denver Headquarters, though if I ever had a generous word for that festering hive, I don't recall it. I'm friends with many of those around me, but I will not hesitate to label us a bunch of filthy drunken lunatics. I seldom have kind words for Managers, Human Resources Representatives, DVs, or Safety Representatives, but it does not follow that I harbor animosity toward the individuals in those roles. It's nothing personal. Just as it's nothing personal when a Manager cracks the whip to keep us in line (it's his job to suppress disorder), when HR Reps tell outrageous lies at orientation (it's their job to present a positive image), or when Safety Reps overlook injuries (it's their job to achieve Injury-Free Months). Just as it's nothing personal when I say that unless these people are very strong (and some of them are) they will eventually if not immediately transform into human cogs, robotic drones who exist only in a world of reaction, desensitized to anything but reward and punishment, and are thus easily manipulated by anyone with more power than they, and therefore should not be trusted.

Is it "mean" to publish such an opinion? Is it "unfair"? No, but it's ruthless. And of course we all understand "ruthless", a cold and purposeful detachment from others' interests or feelings. Were anyone's feelings hurt when the Safety Rep was informing on them? She says she was just doing her job. Were anyone's feelings hurt when NSF violated every single winterover contract by changing the physical requirements after we arrived on the ice? It's just business, someone says. Is it "mean" for the FEMC Sup to confine people to a single room on their breaks? Fuck no, it keeps 'em where you can see 'em. Isn't that right? Ruthless.

No, I'm afraid mercy is a commodity I could only purchase at a loss. To cry about "hurt feelings" caused by Big Dead Place, while overlooking the daily shenanigans of people and agencies whose roles traditionally absolve them of ethical considerations, is a last-ditch effort, consciously or subconsciously, to squirm out from the bed you'd made when you thought no one was looking.

But because empathy is my primary weapon, I will give a few hints for how they who just want to do their little 'ol jobs can be sure to have their roles dissected on those ugly and mean old pages of Big Dead Place:

Run to HR or go up the chain rather than dealing with people directly.
Inform on other people.
Make rules where the absence of rules would suffice.
Summon arcane rules to target someone specific.
Meddle in people's off-the-clock activities.
Go by the book.
Lie.
Fill your free time trying to bust people for petty shit.
Put "mandatory" and "volunteer" in the same sentence.
Hide your arbitrary decisions behind policies like "safety" or "drift hazards".

Without a steady diet of totalitarian bullshit, there would be very little left for Big Dead Place to sink its teeth into, it would consequently shrivel and die, then I would be released from the shackles that so amuse me.

Keep up the good work.

F. Scott Robert

~~~

10 March 04

Hey F.Scott,

Great idea, a contest for developing scurvy. Truly honoring the history of Antarctica that is part of our heritage as overworked drunks. I have a few comments.

First: after my full-blown British Navy-grade case of scurvy has been properly diagnosed and documented, how the hell am I to chew Flintstones chewable Vitamin C tablets with my teeth falling out of my bleeding swollen gums? Tell me that.

Less ranty: Polar explorers of the late 19th century, notable Dr. Frederick A. Cook, found that by eating fresh meat, scurvy could be kept at bay. They procured this meat locally by killing and eating seals and penguins. So I would advise any who attempt this to avoid freshly-killed penguin or seal meat. F. Scott the Original had access to the knowledge, but instead chose to follow the habits of the British Artic explorers whose grandiose expeditions were plagued by scurvy.

And while the Australian explorer Sir Douglas Mawson may have suffered from scurvy, he was more notably afflicted with excessive vitamin A poisoning (hypervitaminosis A). This he got from eating the livers of his dying sled dogs. The liver was apparently the only thing left on starving dogs with the appearance of vitality. The Greenland husky has a massive amount of Vitamin A in its liver. Mawson's symptoms included skin sloughing off his feet and around his groin.

I propose as an alternative to a scurvy contest, BDP offer a Vitamin A poisoning contest.

Signed Ascorbutically,

Once an Antarctican, now just a corporate tool who remembers that he once did something interesting

Once an Antarctican,

Regarding the consumption of Flintstones chewable Vitamin C tablets with destroyed teeth, we recommend either dissolving the vitamins in warm water and drinking the solution through a Krazy Straw, or crushing up the tablets and snorting the powder with a fresh C-note.

As far as a Vitamin A poisoning contest, we did indeed consider this alternative, but decided that the attractive illness suffered by Sir Mawson, no matter how easily contracted, was not a widespread Antarctic affliction, and thus does not deserve "traditional" standing. Since we at Big Dead Place are conservative traditionalists, scurvy more handsomely fit the bill.

Thanks for the historical synopsis.

F. Scott Robert

~~~

The following letter was sent to a Pole scientist.

3 March 04

To whom it may concern,

I am seeing increasing activity in the Antartic region. Are there things about to enter or that entered our solar system that we as americans[sic] should be concerned about? If you have any information on this or any other matter, please contact me. The safety of myself and my family depend upon it. Please don't let this information go upon deaf ears. I appreciate your help in this matter. If you have no information then please let me know because missinformation[sic] can be more damaging than tell[sic] what you would know.

Thank You,
[S]

~~~

2 March 04

Hey Dave [B.],
If I ever see the fat fucking bitch that complained that the honey bucket in the back of the Navy LC-130 was not properly rigged I'll tell her that it was never meant to have the ass cheeks of a 300-lb woman cover it up. Further, if said fat-assed woman can't aim her shit or piss flow into a can that is as wide as a normal office waste basket then she should at least make the effort to clean up her mess. That would also include getting her used bloody tampon inside the liner.

I didn't design the fucking aircraft or the hiney bucket, I was just the poor guy who had to deal with the aftermath of said fat-assed woman.

Finally, how come when Dr. Maohai Huang refused to sit down and strap in for a landing he was not "punished". I mean after all, I only moved a SARP's coat from one seat stantion to another and I was suspended from flying for two weeks.

The Stocky Navy Loadmaster With a Moustache

~~~

23 Feb 04

I just clicked on for old times sake. What the ?/# is going on there? The story on palmer wasen’t good copy for big dead place. Let the reporter want to be send his resume to travel magazine if he is going to write like that. Get with it.

The Ghost

Ghost,

We likeed the sotry about palmer, primairily becaus it conveys teh unusual perspective of a hopeful burocrat from 1988.

Bye bye,
f. Soctt robert

~~~

14 Feb 04

Attached is a picture of one of our trucks parked by one of our long time beakers [Art DeVries]. The truck is now the only two wheel drive truck on station, as the front diff was ripped out.

Apparently the Beaker in question tried to move the truck, and instead of putting it in reverse, put it in drive and whilst wearing his bunny boots, hit the gas a bit harder than normal and popped over the concrete barrier.

No administrative action was taken against the beaker. However, if it had been an RPSC employee, they surely would have been disciplined.

Ice Monkey

~~~

8 Feb 04

I'm thinking about applying for a job for next summer, but the Raytheon website doesn't list salaries for open positions. While working in Antarctica would be a pretty cool experience, I don't want to take time off from school unless the money's good enough to pay off some bills. Is there somewhere I can find out salary information, or is this some kind of secret?

Kiril

Hi Kiril,

Once you get the job, you'll find out how much money you'll make. It's a faux pas to discuss compensation before you have committed to service. Wage lists are proprietary information, but my own wages are my business, so I can tell you this: In 1998 I got a job as a dishwasher making $375 a week in McMurdo, came back making $450 a week in a different job, then did a winter making $620 a week as an equipment operator. This year I turned down a job as a heavy equipment operator making $850 a week so I could check out Pole, where I make $525 a week. You work six days a week, roughly nine hours a day, you work in -80F temps, no haz pay, no overtime (because the Fair Labor Standards Act doesn't apply in a foreign country), and you must pay taxes on your wages (because Antarctica is not a foreign country.) However, there are almost no expenses, so you can keep what you make, and if you stay long enough, the money can be a significant addendum to the attractive lifestyle of long periods of intense work followed by long periods of savage leisure.

Hope that helps.
F. Scott Robert

~~~

3 Feb 04

The right job with the USAP makes for a more enjoyable stay. An enlistment in the armed forces in a computer/electronics career field will ensure you are in great demand when you seperate after 4 or 6 years. Some of the best jobs on the ICE demand this type of military background and most of these are not with RPSC. I come to the ICE to work and everything else is secondary. I can say the things that bother you about the program I've never really had to deal with to any extent.

Regards,
CNS/ATM

Fair enough. The right job anywhere will make for a more enjoyable stay. Besides a 4 to 6 year enlistment in the armed forces, other things that make for a more enjoyable stay on the earth are money, control of one's surroundings (power), health, and mating fulfillment. Yet, as attractive as it is to gather these ingredients for "the enjoyable stay", in acquiring them it does not follow that individual success be the only possible yardstick for our cultural stories. I like my job too. I make enough money to suit me. I get action. In short, I also can say that what bothers me about The Program, I've never really had to deal with. But I deal with it anyway.

I'm always curious to hear how others deal with The Program. Thanks for writing.

F. Scott Robert

~~~

2 Feb 04

Supervisors,

The psychologists, Kathy Porter & Laude Flater, are here now to conduct the pre-winter interviews for the people who will be wintering over. While we've had an initial brisk response, we still have a number left to be signed up. It would be helpful if you could encourage your team to come by the new medical facility and get signed up. The interview lasts 30 minutes each.

Thanks,
South Pole Station Physician

~~~

13 Jan 04

[The Thing] is as true to the novella as you can get. I just need to know something that has been bothering me. When Blair tells Mac to watch out for Clark he says, "believe we". Is that a mistake cause he was drugged, or because every cell is its own entity?

Dr. Comix

Besides a grammatical passive voice, the substitution of "we" for the first-person pronoun of "me" or "I" is the most useful bureaucratic fluorish for evading responsibility of a direct action. As you may have read, the Big Dead Place essay on The Thing states that the most coherent interpretation of the film is as a commentary on the nature of bureaucracy, where a system of survival is put to work invading individuals, so that individuals (whether people or cells) are the only visible culprits of the stultifying havoc unleashed on society (represented by an Antarctic station). If Blair tells Mac "Believe we," it is because he is a foreigner who has miscalculated the context of the situation, and has mistaken his tool shed for a Human Resources office. Revealing his true nature in the latter environment would give him an edge, but in the former environment, imprisoned in some filthy hut by a drunken helo pilot wearing a cowboy hat, the disclosure becomes a liability. Fortunately for The Thing, MacReady was either too slow or too merciful, so The Thing could get back to building its escape vessel unmolested.

~~~

13 Jan 04

All--
There is no gentle way to say this. . .

The skylab lounge is for the enjoyment of everyone on the station. Please do not throw cigarette butts off the balcony or urinate off the balcony. This "litter" does not magically disappear but has to be cleaned up, usually by the science technicians who work in and out of the skylab building. There are butt cans on the balcony and U-barrels on the stairwell. Please be courteous so we can all enjoy the skylab lounge. Thank you. . .

Science Support Coordinator
Raytheon Polar Services Co.
South Pole Office

~~~

6 Jan 04

If working down in Antarctica sucks so much, why do a lot of you keep signing up year after year?

Mike
Cleveland, Ohio

Because it doesn't get any better than this.

Who's love for a place is more stable: one whose love is dredged from a place despite a thousand antagonisms?; or one whose love is entirely contingent on a romantic interpretation of that place? Regarding Antarctica, and other places too, there is no shortage of the latter.

I, personally, never, ever, anywhere, said that Antarctica sucks. I love it here. And so do most of the contributors. No one in this world writes a thousand hours on a subject he hates. But regardless of the editor's and many contributors' curiosity and wonder considering humanity's tragic and absurd and hilarious flash-in-the-pan endeavors through the lens of American Antarctica, Big Dead Place welcomes different perspectives, occasionally even those from apes and patriots whose binary criticism abides by the national policy of us/them, good/bad, like/dislike, or sucks/doesn't-suck, and hereby reserves the right to affectionately publish the odd morsel from our bored and brainwashed brethren now and again. So, thanks for writing.

Those who want to answer the question of why they have returned to Antarctica year after year can do so on the Why I Have Returned to Antarctica Year After Year survey.

F. Scott

~~~

More letters >>

~~~

Write us at letters@bigdeadplace.com